A common thread runs through the seizure of pilgrims as hostages by gunmen in the grand mosque of Kaaba in Medina [Mecca – ed?], the world’s holiest city for the Muslims, the continued captivity of 60 Americans in the US embassy in Teheran and destruction of the US embassy in Islamabad. The thread is the upsurge of Muslim fundamentalism from the Mediterranean to the Pacific. The situation in Saudi Arabia is very different from the one in Iran or Pakistan and in Iran from Pakistan. Though both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are ruled by conservative elements, neither is convulsed by the kind of frenzied revivalism that has been sweeping Iran for over a year. And for all we know the seizure of pilgrims by the so-called Mahdists in Medina may be as much motivated by political considerations as by religious ones for as Cairo’s Al Akhhar has said, political dissent in West Asia often takes on a religious garb. Similarly it is not inconceivable that the angry men who stormed and burnt down the US embassy in Islamabad on Wednesday were inspired as much by anti-Zia and pro-Bhutto sentiments as by the belief voiced by Ayatollah Khomeini that the “criminal American imperialism” and “international Zionism” were responsible for the outrage in Medina. In Teheran’s case also, while it can be argued that anti-Americanism provoked by US support for the deposed Shah and reckless exploitation of Iranian resources principally accounts for the capture of the embassy, it is a safe view that anti-Americanism would not have taken the virulent form it has if a different kind of regime had taken over from the Shah. The same is true about the incidents in Medina and Islamabad.
The situation in Medina and Islamabad, however deplorable, is manageable. The one in Teheran is threatening to assume proportions which defy comprehension. No one can say how it will all end. Ayatollah Khomeini’s behaviour has almost exhausted President Carter’s patience. The US President has finally dispatched a powerful task force of the Sixth Fleet into the Gulf region to reinforce the naval units which are already there and has indicated that he will be forced to use force unless the hostages are released soon unharmed. The Iranian students have responded to the warning by threatening to kill the hostages and other over 200 Americans in the country. This dual tragedy must be avoided. The international community must bestir itself without further loss of time. It has sat idly by for too long. The conflict is bilateral only in the most superficial sense. At stake is the larger issue of how diplomats are to be treated if relations between two countries deteriorate and this concerns all countries. It is difficult to agree with the Ayatollah’s demand that the US must return the deposed Shah to Iran so that the latter can be tried for his alleged crimes because Washington has not given him asylum. The former Shah is there temporarily for treatment which the Americans could have denied him only at the risk of forfeiting the respect of all civilized human beings. But that is not the central issue which is whether the Iranians are entitled even in the face of the gravest provocation to hold diplomats as hostages. The answer must be in the negative.
Meanwhile as the world leaders try to persuade the Ayatollah to see reason, they must also ask President Carter to hold his hand. He, of course, does not need much persuasion. For he is in no position to achieve his main objective by force which must be to rescue his nationals. Teheran is too far away from the shore and the people are too roused. But he can inflict enormous damage on Iran if he orders selective air strikes as the Pentagon is hinting he might do. The consequences of such an action may not remain limited to Iran. We might witness an uncontrollable popular upsurge in the entire region and a drastic cut in oil production and supply. Seen in this perspective this would appear to be the gravest crisis since Cuba in 1962 Perhaps it is even graver. While in the previous case one group of rational men was dealing with another group of pragmatists, this time the American leaders are face to face with men who think in very different terms.
The Times of India, 23 November 1979